I did not even know you could get additional chips or playing pieces other than from third parties @_@.

You can only move land units out of a contested territory into a territory which at the beginning of your turn was either under your control or contained units belonging to you.  Since Ukraine meets neither of those conditions for Germany, Germany may not move land units there from contested Poland.  However, since Moscow is not contested, Germany may move land units into Ukraine from there.

Awesome thanks man

I did find it funny WW1 took place in Europe only lol. Japan was in this too.

@Flashman:

I favour one round only for air and naval combat.

With planes, up the combat value of aircraft built on subsequent turns:

Starting aircraft* = 1
Built turn 1 = 2
Built turn 2 = 3
Built turn 3+ = 4

You can mark the planes with wing stripes.

Give each power an extra starting plane in its capital; extra F in Lorraine, extra G in Munich.

Number of surviving aircraft greater than the enemy after 1 round of combat = the number of artillery you may boost. No surviving enemy and you get to boost all artillery.

Aircraft get to attack ground targets at combat value only if there is no air combat.

This is almost precisely what I was thinking! My only suggestion would be to have 2 turn intervals for the damage increase, so starting planes and those buillt on turn 1 = 1
Those built turns 2-3 = 2
Built turns 4-5 = 3
Built turn 6+ = 4.

This would encourage players to buy planes early, rather than waiting just a turn or two and have their investment be worth triple.

Starlight sniper-
Im liking this idea more and more; you could even save on transports as US by landing them on ireland and flying them to Picardy the next turn to rendevous with a small force of infantry landed there. And if america landed a few infantry across europe, they could then create a highly mobile force which could fly about the continent shoring up weak points in the allied lines. A growing American fighter force flying between Lorraine, Belgium, Venice, Albania, perhaps even Russia or the MI would either gain instant Allied air superiority across the board (blunting massed Axis artillery attacks) or force the Axis to invest heavily in aircraft.

I still like the idea that everyone start with units on peacetime stations; that is more or less evenly distributed around their home tts, with small garrisons in colonies.

The first turn then is a mobilization round, in which powers can (in same turn order) send their units to whichever front they choose.

Units not yet at war cannot mobilize, so if you prefer Turkey & Italy to be neutral R1 they remain a turn behind.

A couple of friends and I are organizing a 1914 tournament. Not on jst one day, but numerous days, starting June 28. Four players at a time, 2 vs 2. We want every player to rotate countries, so that he has played every country.
We are not sure yet how to calculate points. Maybe a point for every enemy country forced into political collapse, or something.

it was very impressive that you were able to take Moscow indeed. Not pressuring OE from India was a large mistake, drawing OE away from russia. Also, Italy not pressing AH and therefore drawing units away from Russia was also poor on their part. Britain was worthless, and italy was not used in an intelligent way. Nice win

@Tavenier:

I wish I knew how to do that!

Download the Battlemap app in the Software section of the Forum and I will teach you how.

Thanks for the input, are there any other opinions out there?

This sounds like a good idea. I play with a lot of new players, many of whom are confused by the “units can move 2 spaces, except when they can’t (except for fighters).”

They’ve always had an easier time with 42.2’s NCM.

@Imperious:

http://www.hark.com/clips/nrbwjmksxg-a-new-car

No it was one of those cheap cars under 20K. Typical.

I wonder if it came with all four wheels…

I didnt get anything from wotc, no pieces no car…
Think I´ll buy another two games.

@Auztria:

I think that for a more fluid game we need cavalry units as well as adjusting the price of tanks. Tanks are devastating in large groups, but it’s hard for most nations to produce large groups of tanks at 6 ipc’s. Plus the early game is pretty monotonous with only masses of infantry and artillery attacking and counter-attacking. Cavalry could help spice it up a bit, maybe with 1/3 atk/def and a movement of 2 with blitz. If they cost 4 but could be boosted by artillery, they’d be a fairly viable unit but would probably fade a lot when tanks arrive.

To say that cavalry played a major role in the war or even that it had an equal level of survivability as infantry is a misstep at best, and revisionist at worst. Cavalry units were consistently BUTCHERED against machine gun-defended infantry lines, and quickly became obsolete. I actually think that the omission of cavalry from this game is one of the better choices of the designer. The early game is “monotonous” (as you’ve put it) with infantry and artillery, because the early WAR was “monotonous”; 1914-1916 was a period hallmarked by mass artillery-supported infantry attacks.

Now, I will grant that on the Eastern Front (as well as in other parts of the world, Mid-East, etc.) cavalry played a slightly greater part than on the Western Front, but I still don’t think it is worth adding an entire other unit to the game to represent this limited role.

If you ARE going to represent cavalry in the game (which I don’t recommend), you must then differentiate between entrenched infantry and mobile infantry, and make the cavalry 0 attack against entrenched. This is the only way it would make sense.

Of course you can attack when you reinforce an contested tt. But its no amphibios assault where the enemys Artillery can shoot at your offloading units at the coast…

Gentalmen thank you for your input I appreciate that and I’m going to go back and look through the rule book and see what it says but your obviously right….

My wargame buddies. And I really. Like this game…

@protevangelium:

How did things in Africa go for the CPs, and how do you feel the naval balance affected this, Chacmool?

Well like everytime in my games the northern African Units of the Allies were early shipped to the European theatre (to reinforce and/or activate Minors like Albania or Portugal) and the British Egypt Army invaded Trans Jordan.

South of the Sahara the Germans took some british colonies until the Allied armys catched them. There were some battles without hits/results in this contested areas until the Germans as defenders could decimate the attacking Aliies in South/East Africa. The naval forces of Britain were too busy bringing more troops into Arabia to push the turks back but after the colossal german/austrian naval investements they had to reduce their Mobilizatian in India to a minimum to enlarge their own Fleet in the North Sea… In the med Italy wasnt capable to answer this naval race and France had to buy Infantry…

At the End of the game strong turkish forces captured the last African tts that werent already in german control while Austrian units landed in Northern Africa.

No beef, really. I just draw a distinction between what might foreseeably happen in a new, 2.0 version vs. what would occur with house rules/tweaking.

Given the WotC delivery on generic sculpts, no cold, hard, IPCs, and the like, I doubt anything like cavalry would make an appearence. Changes in the rules, however, are a more likely thing. Africa, especially, needs some simple but specific rules (ie. restrictive movement, reduced unit attacks/defense, etc.)

However, they would be something I would consider adding in a house-rule/variant derived from A&A 1914. But they would need to add something significant or unique to the game play. I know that’s been discussed in other threads, and personally, I’m split on the issue. I am more likely to add trains and fortresses to the mix (e.g. the latter did significantly affect the course of the war, such as in Liege or Przemsyl). It gives another focus for artillery/infantry, and siphons off troops from the otherwise attritional wars o’ stacks.

Point being, I’m just drawing distinctions between “what might” and “would if”. And nothing personal was intended.

We’ve had a lot of success with 4 players;

~Germany
~Austria/Turkey
~Britain/US (UK is huge, so the player doesn’t mind waiting through the US turns)
~Russia/France/Italy

We might also swap US for Italy in this setup.

And I agree, France IS boring, with only 1 real option. Stack the Western front and wait to get bailed out.

That would be wherever they’re most needed; though it could be argued that if the Central Powers haven’t achieved their objectives before the Americans start arriving in Europe in significant numbers then they’re unlikely ever to do so. US entry is the ticking clock the CPs have to beat, though as I’ve suggested its start could be linked to Russian collapse rather than a mandatory turn 4.

Therefore plugging the gaps in Allied lines, notably stopping western capitals falling, is the most usual use for US imports.